Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Canucks: Puck Possession Or Transition Team?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
25 replies to this topic

Poll: Puck Possession or Transition (39 member(s) have cast votes)

Do the Canucks keep possession of the puck to create offense or do they rely on their transition game to enter the offensive zone?

  1. Transition (21 votes [53.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 53.85%

  2. Puck Possession (Powerplay doesn't count obviously) (18 votes [46.15%])

    Percentage of vote: 46.15%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Kryten

Kryten

    Aladdin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,359 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 20 May 2012 - 01:51 PM

I have heard many times that we follow the Detroit's puck possession style and we generate offense from keeping the other team from gaining control of the puck. I have also heard that we are a solid transition team that makes teams pay when they turn the puck over (like Phoenix). I personally believe that we are a solid transition team but I want to know what you think. Here's my reasoning:

I believe that a lot of people think puck possession means maintaining control in the offensive zone (ie the cycle). To me the definition of puck possession is maintaining control in all three zones as often as possible. In my opinion the most important part of keeping the puck controlled throughout the game starts with the breakout. I believe that our breakout has major issues with players not being on the same page. Some lines like to offer puck support some of the time, others not at all and the defence are left playing a guessing game.

When we gain control of the puck in our zone, our forwards have a tendency to blow the zone, giving our defenceman a very risky choice: dump the puck to the neutral zone, or try to connect a long pass. These options are dangerous because the other team has the opportunity to gain possession. IMO this is why Hamhuis and Bieksa struggled down the stretch and why Ballard has more often than not rode the pine: they are defence who need puck support so they can pass to a target or carry the puck with speed. Detroit's defenceman are not hung out to dry like the Canuck's defence and are more likely to keep possession because they have more options to use when breaking the puck out of their zone. When most defenceman are pressured or tired, they are going to ice the puck unless they have outlets!

When puck-possession squads run into teams that utilize defensive strategies like the trap, they change their breakout accordingly. For example: I have seen two answers to the trap: overload one side of the ice and create open space in the neutral zone or force the puck to the red-line to dump and chase. Another difference between us and Detroit: we often dump the puck before reaching the neutral zone, Detroit dumps it in from the red-line (FTR I know every team ices the puck, but most times it's an error on a player's behalf and not a symptom of strategy). If one of our zone clearing attempts turns into an icing, well we have some of the best centers in the league (coincedence - I think not). Our centerman while often on the winning side, aren't infallible and will lose at least one out of every three draws. Again not the actions of a team who likes to maintain control of the puck.

The most notable sign of our non-puck possessiveness is when we take the lead in a game. Even if it is in the first period it seems that we go into trap mode and defend a one goal lead for forty minutes. We do nothing but dump the puck and plug the neutral zone. We differ from Detroit on this strategem as well. While there is no doubt they are more aware of their defensive responsibilities when ahead, they still do not offer up possession without a battle (please keep in mind that I am referring to Detroit's strategy and not their results).

IMO we are not a puck possession team, we are a transition team who relies on special teams. I would prefer we be a puck possession squad because I believe that the transition game can be beaten by a select few teams that have exceptional puck moving skills and an aggressive forecheck (who happen to be the teams we tend to meet in the post-season). AV's strategy wins us a lot of games but let's not call his strategy something it is not.
Posted Image

#2 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 20 May 2012 - 02:11 PM

You've just outlined what drives me batshirt crazy about this team's offensive strategy in a way that I would never have been able to articulate.
This strategy gets exposed in series play, as other teams adjust (if it even has the chance to work for a game or two), or, as you mentioned, possess exceptional puck moving skills and an aggressive forecheck to begin with and nearly sweep us.
The system may win lots of regular season games, which admittedly gives us a chance every season to at least make the playoffs, but compare games won vs games lost in the playoffs in the last 5 years against series won vs series lost. There is bound to be a glaring contrast. The Chicago series and the Cup finals series illustrate the importance of that contrast - you can still win lots of playoff games and come home empty handed. Which, to me, spells out the obvious need for at least a change in game-plan/strategy . . .

Snake Doctor, on 23 May 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:snapback.png

Miller is not on our list. It's Lack as our #1. There is no reason we would have traded both Schnieder and Luongo if we never intended to give Lack the #1 starting job.  Furthermore, the salary and term Miller is looking for is not in our favor.

 


#3 hockeystar

hockeystar

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 147 posts
  • Joined: 09-July 11

Posted 20 May 2012 - 02:17 PM

well, power play should count in your analysis because this team is strictly built for the power play... so i would have to confirm that we would like to be a puck possession team but since we don't have the d that can do that anymore we dump it in most of of the time and we lose the battles quite often .... so we really do have to make changes....
Posted Image

#4 skyfall

skyfall

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 940 posts
  • Joined: 16-November 09

Posted 20 May 2012 - 03:20 PM

I would say the Canucks are mostly a low risk possession/dump the puck team with an uncoordinated transition mentality.

They like to push the puck up quickly but the players don't always know whether to attack or to pass. That split second indecision leads to a weak attack or just set offense.

With possession they like to try to make the safe plays and mostly keep the puck on the perimeter. At times there are passes that should go to the middle and thats when other teams like to exploit the offense. In the regular season this works ok because teams are more likely to have holes. However in the playoffs bad habits and turnovers lead to great chances the other way.

They should be great at both offensive styles while having better coordination for transition d if they do make turnovers. Right now I just see the Canucks as having many holes in many aspects of their game and no real strategic advantage over playoff teams. I see them as a team that has potential to be better than they are.

#5 Grape

Grape

    Fruit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 11

Posted 20 May 2012 - 03:25 PM

The way they played their last few games, they didn't at all look like a puck possession team.

mj761l.jpg0007.gif0007.gif0007.gif0007.gif  
Signature Credit to Vintage Canuck!


#6 Grape

Grape

    Fruit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 11

Posted 20 May 2012 - 03:29 PM

well, power play should count in your analysis because this team is strictly built for the power play... so i would have to confirm that we would like to be a puck possession team but since we don't have the d that can do that anymore we dump it in most of of the time and we lose the battles quite often .... so we really do have to make changes....

This.

mj761l.jpg0007.gif0007.gif0007.gif0007.gif  
Signature Credit to Vintage Canuck!


#7 Thunder Bunnies

Thunder Bunnies

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,597 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 10

Posted 20 May 2012 - 03:39 PM

I really don't like watching the Canucks play the dump and chase to gain access to the offensive zone because we tend to lose majority of the battles

#8 Ugli Fruit

Ugli Fruit

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,872 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 09

Posted 20 May 2012 - 04:20 PM

This is why I was annoyed that Ehrhoff left (yes I know he was not worth what he wanted). However, Ehrhoff was and probably would still be our best puck-moving D-man, and he, more often than not, broke the team out of the zone successfully. We seriously underestimated his offensive, and, general value. Points is not everything. Ehrhoff did a lot of things our D can't do (ie. puck-moving, puck distribution, getting shots through, consistent PP anchor).

Formerly known as LordofBrussels

There we have it folks, we have literally blamed everyone for everything at this point


Posted Image
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image


#9 ButterBean

ButterBean

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,228 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 09

Posted 20 May 2012 - 05:46 PM

I really struggle to find how we are a transition team when one of our main problems is scoring off of the rush. Look at Philly's offense for example. Almost all of their offense is created off of the rush because they have guys who have speed, high chemistry, high offensive awareness, and they know when to pass or shoot. We've seen flashes of it on our team but our 2nd line especially needs to improve that part of their game. It pains me to watch Kesler and Booth just fire wrist shot after wrist shot in hopes of a lucky bounce or rebound.

#10 Kryten

Kryten

    Aladdin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,359 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 20 May 2012 - 05:54 PM

well, power play should count in your analysis because this team is strictly built for the power play... so i would have to confirm that we would like to be a puck possession team but since we don't have the d that can do that anymore we dump it in most of of the time and we lose the battles quite often .... so we really do have to make changes....


You misunderstood me. I do count the team's powerplay success as a positive, just not as a means to call them a "puck possession" team as any team worth its salt should be able to own the puck with the man advantage.
Posted Image

#11 RunningWild

RunningWild

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,935 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 10

Posted 20 May 2012 - 06:00 PM

Great read, thanks! I think the Nucks define themselves as a 'puck possession' team, you hear the players and Gillis stating it in post game interviews etc etc. I am no expert, but I also agree Canucks are a transition team who rely heavily on special teams - but I think their bread and butter is puck possession.

Unfortunately, they were a bad puck possession team this yr (8th in the league). Here's a good read: http://www.broadstre...ck-nhl-playoffs For a team that relies heavily on puck control, being 8th in the league is all sorts of bad (note: LA was 1st in the league).

I would describe AV as a 'zone matching' vs. a 'line matching' coach. I believe his hard matching zone starts have hurt the Canucks puck possession - most notably for this yr. His zone starts this yr were much more 'extreme' than last yr (take a look at behind the net if you know what I'm talking about). To a large degree, I think it's killed the teams ability to create as many scoring chances and it leads to increased scoring chances against (hence bad puck possession). I think it explains why when they're up a goal they convert into more of a trap system - it's to compensate for the hard matching zone starts.

As you stated, this team relies heavily on special teams. Unfortunately, that is more suited for the reg season vs. the playoffs. We've now seen Boston win a cup with a brutal PP, and LA is following suit. It's part of the reason why I'd like to see a new coach. This team needs a new system, one that doesn't include extreme zone starts or heavy reliance on special teams.

Edited by RunningWild, 20 May 2012 - 06:01 PM.


#12 Kryten

Kryten

    Aladdin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,359 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 20 May 2012 - 06:01 PM

I really struggle to find how we are a transition team when one of our main problems is scoring off of the rush. Look at Philly's offense for example. Almost all of their offense is created off of the rush because they have guys who have speed, high chemistry, high offensive awareness, and they know when to pass or shoot. We've seen flashes of it on our team but our 2nd line especially needs to improve that part of their game. It pains me to watch Kesler and Booth just fire wrist shot after wrist shot in hopes of a lucky bounce or rebound.


We're a team that gains possession from turnovers and forechecking. We don't see many rushes that start with solid passes from our zone, that's what irks me. When we do get an odd man rush, it's often due to a neutral zone dump that escapes the opposing dman. That works great against some clubs but others have solid dmen that never get caught off guard on that play.
Posted Image

#13 Kryten

Kryten

    Aladdin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,359 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 20 May 2012 - 06:05 PM

You've just outlined what drives me batshirt crazy about this team's offensive strategy in a way that I would never have been able to articulate.
This strategy gets exposed in series play, as other teams adjust (if it even has the chance to work for a game or two), or, as you mentioned, possess exceptional puck moving skills and an aggressive forecheck to begin with and nearly sweep us.
The system may win lots of regular season games, which admittedly gives us a chance every season to at least make the playoffs, but compare games won vs games lost in the playoffs in the last 5 years against series won vs series lost. There is bound to be a glaring contrast. The Chicago series and the Cup finals series illustrate the importance of that contrast - you can still win lots of playoff games and come home empty handed. Which, to me, spells out the obvious need for at least a change in game-plan/strategy . . .


I appreciate your input Vansicle, but don't sell yourself short. I have read your posts before and you articulate yourself just fine.
Posted Image

#14 Kryten

Kryten

    Aladdin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,359 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 20 May 2012 - 06:14 PM

Great read, thanks! I think the Nucks define themselves as a 'puck possession' team, you hear the players and Gillis stating it in post game interviews etc etc. I am no expert, but I also agree Canucks are a transition team who rely heavily on special teams - but I think their bread and butter is puck possession.

Unfortunately, they were a bad puck possession team this yr (8th in the league). Here's a good read: http://www.broadstre...ck-nhl-playoffs For a team that relies heavily on puck control, being 8th in the league is all sorts of bad (note: LA was 1st in the league).

I would describe AV as a 'zone matching' vs. a 'line matching' coach. I believe his hard matching zone starts have hurt the Canucks puck possession - most notably for this yr. His zone starts this yr were much more 'extreme' than last yr (take a look at behind the net if you know what I'm talking about). To a large degree, I think it's killed the teams ability to create as many scoring chances and it leads to increased scoring chances against (hence bad puck possession). I think it explains why when they're up a goal they convert into more of a trap system - it's to compensate for the hard matching zone starts.

As you stated, this team relies heavily on special teams. Unfortunately, that is more suited for the reg season vs. the playoffs. We've now seen Boston win a cup with a brutal PP, and LA is following suit. It's part of the reason why I'd like to see a new coach. This team needs a new system, one that doesn't include extreme zone starts or heavy reliance on special teams.


Thank you. I do believe AV has the ability to lead the team to a victory, I just think that it will take some changes to his gameplan that will improve our breakout and repair whatever it was that broke our powerplay chemistry. We as fans need to see a more disciplined and focused group next year.
Posted Image

#15 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,163 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 20 May 2012 - 06:15 PM

What's interesting is that on an 'off' year, this team still won the President's trophy.
Posted Image

#16 Gonz

Gonz

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 715 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted 20 May 2012 - 08:24 PM

My issue is price of tickets. Because of the organization charges tickets in the high end bracket the game better be entertaining. It's fine to watch at home and beat non playoff teams 1 0, BC as long as the teams winning. But for people who pay 200 for pair of tickets how exciting is a defensive minded team??? I spend so much time just preparing to go to game and leaving a game, those years when first av came in was a snoozer, I hard such hard time selling tickets to games can't go. Saying that if they ever start playing like that I'm just going keep selling off seasons until things change.

I remember near end of season media and bieska were complaining how the crowd were too quiet. I was thinking BC games weren't that entertaining unless you like to cheer being outshot n goalies making the safes. Maybe we can cheer keslerd diving since this a non fighting n big hitting style of the team. Last year this wasn't a big factor BC they were scoring on pp and making teams pay for it giving the crowd something cheer about. Plus I miss the rypper crowd was so hyped up when he dropped em

#17 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,163 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 20 May 2012 - 09:09 PM

Well Rypper ain't comin back, y'know, BC of whut happened last summer.
Posted Image

#18 Rhinogator

Rhinogator

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,736 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 10

Posted 20 May 2012 - 09:13 PM

we're not fast enough to transition. we lose our puck too much at the bline to play possession.
Posted ImagePosted Image

#19 The Brahma Bull

The Brahma Bull

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,224 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 08

Posted 20 May 2012 - 09:57 PM

WE NEED EHRHOFF


#20 ajhockey

ajhockey

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,987 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 10

Posted 20 May 2012 - 10:44 PM

Transition. There have been countless times that I've heard announcers say how we move the puck so quickly from one end to the other. Great first passes from d-men as well as rushing defenders like Bieksa and Ballard also help.

I will add this: Last year we we're more of a transition team than this year.

Edited by ajhockey, 20 May 2012 - 10:46 PM.

14ndb35.jpg
Credit to -Vintage Canuck- for the awesome sig!

"Gino, Gino, Gino, Gino!"
Rest In Peace, Rypien, Demitra, and Bourdon


#21 questforthecup

questforthecup

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 858 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 10

Posted 20 May 2012 - 10:53 PM

Something that really bothers me is the lack of a clean outlet pass. If there's a strong forecheck from the opponents, our defense are stuck ringing the puck around the boards to each other. Thing is, these passes are hard to gain control off of and making a better pass next time is even more difficult. Especially against LA, their second forward would be waiting along the boards for the inevitable ring around the boards. The forwards need to support the defense better when trying to move up-ice. To me, this was our biggest weakness against LA. They reduced our puck-controlling to shambles and exploited the turnovers with their hard forechecking and we never adjusted.

#22 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 21 May 2012 - 03:40 AM

I have heard many times that we follow the Detroit's puck possession style and we generate offense from keeping the other team from gaining control of the puck. I have also heard that we are a solid transition team that makes teams pay when they turn the puck over (like Phoenix). I personally believe that we are a solid transition team but I want to know what you think. Here's my reasoning:

I believe that a lot of people think puck possession means maintaining control in the offensive zone (ie the cycle). To me the definition of puck possession is maintaining control in all three zones as often as possible. In my opinion the most important part of keeping the puck controlled throughout the game starts with the breakout. I believe that our breakout has major issues with players not being on the same page. Some lines like to offer puck support some of the time, others not at all and the defence are left playing a guessing game.

When we gain control of the puck in our zone, our forwards have a tendency to blow the zone, giving our defenceman a very risky choice: dump the puck to the neutral zone, or try to connect a long pass. These options are dangerous because the other team has the opportunity to gain possession. IMO this is why Hamhuis and Bieksa struggled down the stretch and why Ballard has more often than not rode the pine: they are defence who need puck support so they can pass to a target or carry the puck with speed. Detroit's defenceman are not hung out to dry like the Canuck's defence and are more likely to keep possession because they have more options to use when breaking the puck out of their zone. When most defenceman are pressured or tired, they are going to ice the puck unless they have outlets!

When puck-possession squads run into teams that utilize defensive strategies like the trap, they change their breakout accordingly. For example: I have seen two answers to the trap: overload one side of the ice and create open space in the neutral zone or force the puck to the red-line to dump and chase. Another difference between us and Detroit: we often dump the puck before reaching the neutral zone, Detroit dumps it in from the red-line (FTR I know every team ices the puck, but most times it's an error on a player's behalf and not a symptom of strategy). If one of our zone clearing attempts turns into an icing, well we have some of the best centers in the league (coincedence - I think not). Our centerman while often on the winning side, aren't infallible and will lose at least one out of every three draws. Again not the actions of a team who likes to maintain control of the puck.

The most notable sign of our non-puck possessiveness is when we take the lead in a game. Even if it is in the first period it seems that we go into trap mode and defend a one goal lead for forty minutes. We do nothing but dump the puck and plug the neutral zone. We differ from Detroit on this strategem as well. While there is no doubt they are more aware of their defensive responsibilities when ahead, they still do not offer up possession without a battle (please keep in mind that I am referring to Detroit's strategy and not their results).

IMO we are not a puck possession team, we are a transition team who relies on special teams. I would prefer we be a puck possession squad because I believe that the transition game can be beaten by a select few teams that have exceptional puck moving skills and an aggressive forecheck (who happen to be the teams we tend to meet in the post-season). AV's strategy wins us a lot of games but let's not call his strategy something it is not.


As someone with limited experience of the NHL and therefore the finer points of strategy, I enjoyed that post immensely. I only wish more posters (who are capable) on here would put forward these kind of thought out posts on tactics and strategies.
Keep them coming man, I'm hooked. :)

Ps Can I add the same compliment to RunningWild and the others who have contributed to your very interesting thread.
One thing that would interest me is while you have mentioned obviously the coach's part in their style of play could you guys maybe enlighten me as to how some of our player fit with this style. (or don't in your opinion)

I have always assumed you pick the system to suit the players at your disposal and then strengthen the system through upgrades.

Is that the case here, or is AV intent on making the players fit his system?

Edited by Bodee, 21 May 2012 - 03:56 AM.

Kevin.jpg

#23 Alexander.Edler

Alexander.Edler

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 916 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 09

Posted 21 May 2012 - 12:00 PM

find it funny how the votes are split in half, as I would think the Canucks don't have an identity in this field as they play puck possession and transition games, but we need to settle on one.

Posted Image


#24 Gonz

Gonz

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 715 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted 21 May 2012 - 12:38 PM

Well Rypper ain't comin back, y'know, BC of whut happened last summer.


Where does it say I want Rypien back. Said i missed Rypien. And point was if Gillis actually built the team to be stronger there might be some good hits n fights to get the crown going. Examples would be la n bruins.

#25 Kryten

Kryten

    Aladdin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,359 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 21 May 2012 - 04:15 PM

As someone with limited experience of the NHL and therefore the finer points of strategy, I enjoyed that post immensely. I only wish more posters (who are capable) on here would put forward these kind of thought out posts on tactics and strategies.
Keep them coming man, I'm hooked. :)

Ps Can I add the same compliment to RunningWild and the others who have contributed to your very interesting thread.
One thing that would interest me is while you have mentioned obviously the coach's part in their style of play could you guys maybe enlighten me as to how some of our player fit with this style. (or don't in your opinion)

I have always assumed you pick the system to suit the players at your disposal and then strengthen the system through upgrades.

Is that the case here, or is AV intent on making the players fit his system?


Glad to be of service :) and thank you.

AV's success is based on his intent to make players buy into his system which is geared to be strong defensively from goaltending out (acquisitions of Luongo and Mitchell when AV was hired are strong indicators). You win and lose as a team, not as individual players and a coach is vital in making sure everyone buys into the gameplan (those who don't won't be on the roster for long). The number of players who do well under the system fluctuates throughout the season, the best indicator who is and isn't conforming is to just look at time on ice. That being said, chemistry is the key to winning against strong opponents, and the coach is the architect of chemistry and often not given the credit for how a team performs, be it good or bad (my favourite example of coaches influencing team chemistry is John Maclean being relieved by Jacques Lemaire in New Jersey last season).

AV does have to tweak his system from time to time to accommodate new arrivals and breakout players, but ultimately the defense first fundamentals should stay the same. I should mention coaching styles are more than just systems. For example: a coach will bag skate his players till they can hardly breathe and then teach them fundamentals. All players make mistakes when they are tired, solid coaching helps prevent poor decisions.

As far as players go, the team leaders are also important when it comes to keeping the stragglers in line with the system. They guide the younger or more headstrong players into believing the system will win them games and to not shirk their roles as they are assigned. The players who tend to be too stubborn are the players you don't want on your team. Ballard and Schneider are excellent examples of "team" players who may not like their roles but play them without complaint (IMO why they are so popular among fans as well). To me, the players with that kind of attitude are who bring success even if they aren't parcticularly well suited for the system they must buy into.

Edited by Kryten, 21 May 2012 - 04:16 PM.

Posted Image

#26 Kryten

Kryten

    Aladdin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,359 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 21 May 2012 - 04:24 PM

find it funny how the votes are split in half, as I would think the Canucks don't have an identity in this field as they play puck possession and transition games, but we need to settle on one.


I was very surprised by the results......really thought I was in the minority on this one.

Posted Image

Verrrrrrry Interesting......
Posted Image




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.